IE 



.CJ 




c^ 






:FI?,EIi] TSlIf?,^?,ITOI^IES. 



SPEECH 



HO]^. JOH¥ A. MOON, 



OF a^ji;]sris-E;ss!!EE, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



FEBRUARY 26, 1900. 



■WA.SHIDSrG-XON'. 
1900. 




E 1/3 

A SI 



SPEECH 

OF 

HOi^. JOHjVT a. moon. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 8315) to regulate the trade of 
Puerto Rico, and for other purposes- 
Mr. MOON said: 

Mr. Chairman: It is not improper to discuss under this bill 
general territorial and governmental questions now interesting 
the people. Among the many serious propositions presented for 
the determination of the American Congress and people are the 
issues of expansion in territory and imperialism in administration. 
Expansion isone issue; imperialism, or militarism, is quite another. 
All expansionists are not imperialists, but all imperialists are ex- 
pansionists. One issue pertains to the limit of territory, the other 
to the limit of power in the control of the territory. 

Expansion of territory for legitimate purposes has been the policy 
of this Govei-nment. It has hitherto been a practical necessity, 
vitally important in upholding our institutions. The acquirement 
of the territory heretofore possessed by us was imperative, that 
we might secure, as far as possible, a position of isolation in the 
world without formidable neighbors inimical to republican insti- 
tutions, to menace us and that we might avoid the maintenance 
of a large standing army to.prptect our frontiers and its cost to 
the people. •.•^" 

An ocean-girded republic was necessary to the cause of human 
freedom. This expansion meant the enlargement of the Republic, 
the building of new States for the Union. It was constitutional, 
legitimate, and natural expansion. It was in most cases as essen- 
tial to the preservation of our institutions as the invocation of the 
Monroe doctrine was necessary to the establishment and perpetuity 
of republics in the Western World. 
If for the preservation of our own Republic it should become 
3 4103 



P. 

Cong. Keeord Otf^ 



necessary to incorporate into it contii:,nons or other territory, we 
could not hesitate in the performanco of this duty, for self- 
preservation is the first law of nature for nations as well as for 
individuals: but so long as this prime necessity, which alone could 
excuse us, does not exist, we would do violence to our institutions 
to forcibly annex any people, for the doctrine that all just govern- 
ment rests on the consent of the governer"' applies always and 
everywhere, except when the withholding of such consent would 
destroy our own existence as a free people or constitute a per- 
petual menace to our peace and happiness; then, and then only, 
the appeal to force is justifiable and will give "survival to the 
fittest," and annexation by conquest is resolved into right. Upon 
this doctrine alone can we justify the driving of the red man into 
the western seas. 

Expansion hy consent is always lawful, and expansion by con- 
quest, when this imperative necessity exists, is justifiable; but ex- 
pansion for any other purpose than the incorporation of the terri- 
tory acquired ultimately into the Union as a free State is not 
justifiable under our form of government. 

Expansion by conquest for mere gain is without justification. 
It is invasion and murder for public plunder. While a wisepol- 
icy would confine the acquisition of territory to this hemisphere, it 
can not be denied that if we have the right to acquire by consent 
or by legitimate conquest (as a prime necessity for self-preser- 
vation) territory in the western world, then the same reasoning 
would enable us to acquire it in the East; but the acquisition of 
such territory must under all circumstances be for the same legit- 
imate purpose— the ultimate establishment of a free State, to the 
end that the principles of free government under the Constitution 
may be advanced and the welfare of this Union promoted and 
protected. 

Before discussing the question of the application of our Consti- 
tution and laws to the ceded territory and the rights of citizen- 
ship in that territory, let us consider our right of sovereignty in 
that territory. Did we acquire the right morally and legally to 
exercise the ultimate power of a sovereign in these islands? Is 
our right to govern the result of treaty stipulations or does it rest 
on conquest, or both? Are our rights complete or inchoate? 

4108 



Puerto Rico is a legitimate acquisition of the Union. Why? She 
acknowledged Spain as her sovereign; Spain ceded in the Paris 
treaty of peace her right of sovereignty over Puerto E.ico to the 
United States. The people of Puerto Rico have acquiesced in the 
cession and given voluntary allegiance to the United States, the 
new sovereign. Our right to Puerto Rico is based, therefore, on 
the cession of the governing power in the island and the consent 
of the people. The Puerto Rico question involves no complica- 
tion as to the proper and lawful exercise of sovereignty in the 
island by the United States, We have expanded as to Puerto 
Rico, and I know of no method by which Puerto Rico could now 
be alienated or detached from this Union unless we recognize the 
right of secession. 

The Hawaiian Islands caiue to us by virtue of the treaty-making 
power. Her de facto government agreed to the annexation, and 
not entirely without the approbation of her masses. Our claim 
to these islands, shadowed as it is, rests on the doctrine of con- 
sent. Expansion as to the Hawaiian Islands is accomplished. 

The solution of the Philippine question is more difficult. Our 
attitude in these islands is unsatisfactory and embarrassing. L 
can not agree with those who would abandon the Philippine 
Islands and withdraw our forces therefrom under existing condi- 
tions; nor am I prepared, as a question of law or good faith and 
morals, to admit the right of our (jrovernment to permanently 
control and annex these islands to the United States nor to con- 
cede under the law and facts that the United States, has more than 
the inchoate right of sovereignty over them, subject, it may be, 
ultimately to be perfected by reason of the necessities of the case 
only. 

The present military occupation of the Philippine Islands by 
this country is lawful. We declared war against Spain in the 
name of human rights and libertj' to redeem the perishing and op- 
pressed people of Cuba from the exactions and tyranny of the 
Spanish Government, The Philippine Islands were recognized 
then by us as a part of the colonial possessions of Spain. To force 
the relaxation of her grasp on Cuba the American navy proceeded 
to Manila Bay and destroyed the fleet of Spain, and with the aid 
of Philippine soldiers on land, then in revolt in the island of Lu- 

41U8 



zon against Spain, destroj-ed hex- power in this territory. Thus 
the city of Manila and a portion of the island of Luzon came un- 
der the actual control of the United States and her Philippine 
allies. 

This was a lawful military occupation of that portion of the 
islands by the United States. Under these circumstances the 
Paris treaty of peace was made, by which, in consideration of 
$20,000,000, Spain relinquished her claim to sovereignty over the 
hundreds of islands in the archipelago, and the Spanish-AmericaTi 
war ended. Up to this time our soldiers have occupied Luzon as 
a military necessity. If we acquired lawfully the right of domin- 
ion over the Philippine people by virtue of the treaty, then, of 
course, our occupancy and permanent retention of the islands can 
not be questioned; but if we did not (which we will assume to be 
true for the present), then our right to temporary occupation de- 
I)ends on existing conditions and the necessities of the case rather 
than the law. 

Immediately after the treaty of peace a conflict arose between 
the United States troops in Luzon and the natives over our right 
to occupy the territory pending the action of our Government as 
to its policy. That territory was disputed, and the appeal to arms 
was made by Aguinaldo, the Philippine dictator. All govern- 
ment was practically destroyed. There exists no means by which 
public or private wrongs can be redressed. Aguinaldo or any 
other dictator is as offensive to human rights as the tyranny of 
Spain. Those of the islanders who are now sustaining the right of 
the United States to occupancy would perish at the hands of the 
alleged dictator's government but for the presence of our forces. 
The islands have been brought to their present unsettled condition 
and absence of government. It is idle to discuss the moving causes 
to this condition. We are in iDart responsible for it; whether 
properly or improperly so is immaterial. The conditions must be 
changed. The islands must be pacified. If it can not be done 
peaceably, it must be done forcibly. We have destroyed all form 
of government there and we can not withdraw from the islands 
until we secure protection to life, liberty, and property in that 
section where we have been the instrument, voluntarily or in- 
voluntarily, of producing in part this unhappy situation. We 
4108 



6 

can not leave the islands withont law, order, or government and 
the people the prey of predatory bands of assassins and guerrilla 
warfare. Order must be established in the islands. Until this is 
done no free government can be given to them. Whatever juris- 
diction may ultimately assume control there, our obligation is 
the same. We must secure to the Philippines that free govern- 
ment promised and guaranteed on our sacred honor to Ciiba. 
We began the war against Spain for freedom; we must end it for 
freedom. 

Did we acquire legitimate and complete sovereignty over the 
Philippine Islands by the treaty of peace between Spain and the 
United States? Did sovereignty become ours by conquest or by 
consent? The treaty itself precludes the idea that we acquired 
any sovereign right in the islands by conquest. The interpretation 
by the commissioners of the treaty repudiates the idea of acquisi- 
tion by conquest. If we claimed by conquest, our claim could 
attach only to the conquered territory— Manila and a contiguous 
portion of the island of Luzon. If we obtained any title, it was 
by cession for the consideration of $20,000,000. Spain did not 
assume to communicate to us complete sovereign rights in the 
archipelago. She simply relinquished her sovereignty. Did this 
relinquishment vest us with the powers of a sovereign? We no 
doubt acquired such title as Spain had. We could not by this ces- 
sion obtain a title superior to hers. If she had not complete sover- 
eignty, we did not acquire it. If her sovereign power had been 
broken and destroyed in all or a part of the islands she assumed to 
control when she relinquished her rights in our favor, then we pur- 
chased only such legitimate right as she at that time had to en- 
force obedience to her power in the islands. Sovereignty can not 
be put in abeyance. 

If the governing power is dethroned by the people in a mon- 
archy, then sovereignty vests in the people; if dethroned by an- 
other power, it passes to that power capable of exercising and 
maintaining it. In a republic sovereign power is vested in the peo- 
ple at all times. When a monarchy is incapable of enforcing its 
mandates the scepter has departed and sovereignty is no longer 
actual,complete, andeffective, but becomestechnical, inchoate, and 
unreal. If we shall believe the history of the times, the power of 

4108 



Spain had ceased and sovereignty was reconqnered by the people 
in most of the Philippine Islands when she relinquished her claims 
in the Paris treat}'. 

As to these islands, we piirchased them from a dethroned sov- 
ereign and acquired no moral or legal right to supreme power over 
their people even under the crude laws of nations. In other islands 
of the archipelago the people were struggling as were the people of 
Cuba to cast off the yoke of Spanish oppression. Particularly was 
this true in Luzon. In the name of humanity we came upon the 
scene of action. The final struggle for liberty by the people was 
unabated. Spain was engaged in her last and supremest effort to 
maintain her sovereignty over an unwilling people. Our arms, 
united with the revolutionary subjects, freed the island of Spanish 
dominion. We did battle there in the holy cause of Cuban freedom. 

The Philippine people hailed our coming as their deliverers, 
too. Did we interfere in the cause of freedom, or was it to pre- 
vent the people from reconquering sovereignty from Spain that 
we might purchase it and give them a new master? The attempt 
of our Government to purcliase under such circumstances the 
right to rule an unwilling people, then engaged in a struggle for 
independence, impugns the honor and integrity of our own great 
and free people. The technical right of Spain to be recognized as 
a sovereign in the island of Luzon until her sovereignty was re- 
conquered by the people may legally exist and by the laws of na- 
tions she might transfer such a right to us, but in my humble 
judgment the principles of a republic forbid that it should be- 
come the purchaser in the market overt, without their consent, of 
the liberties of any people. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

The banner of Filipino freedom was "waving high aloft " and 
proudly sustained. The power of the Spanish dynastj' had well- 
nigh ended. Her colonies were all in revolt; her ministry was 
violent; her Cortes indignant; her people maddened with disaster 
and rebellion. Her armies were routed; her navy at the bottom 
of the sea; her throne trembling. The last act to accomplish Fili- 
pino indeijendence and to break the chains of three centuries of 
tyranny was about to be performed when the Paris treaty of 
peace announced the bargain and sale of their liberty by their 
expiring monarch. Can we press our technical claim to sover- 

4103 



8 

eignty under these facts? Can we deceive the intelligence of 
mankind by these pretenses? Is not our country worthy of a 
better cause than this? We may do violence to good conscience; 
we may act in bad faith toward our friends, if not our allies; we 
may convert the war of Cuban freedom into a war of conquest to 
perfect our inchoate right of sovereignty over a proud and liberty- 
loving people, but we can not satisfy ourselves nor the enlight- 
ened judgment of the world that we are right. The blessings of 
Heaven can not be with the cause of injustice. Let us proclaim 
to the Philippine people our intention of restoring order, estab- 
lishing peace, and enabling them to provide a free government of 
their choice, and then to depart the islands, leaving them to lib- 
erty and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause on the Democratic 
Bide.] 

But, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the fixed and no doubt sin- 
cere views of those who feel that we have the moral and legal right 
to permanently retain and annex the Philippine Islands to the 
United States, let us assume that these islands, equally with Puerto 
Rico and Hawaii, are legitimately under our sovereign control; 
then what is the duty, the responsibility, and the measure of the 
obligations of the United States to these countries, and what are 
their rights of citizenship? Can the United States govern them at 
the pleasure of Congress, uncontrolled by constitutional limita- 
tions? Are the inhabitants of these countries entitled to the rights 
of citizenship of the United States by virtue of their annexation? 

Does the Administration, including Congress, have any inherent 
l^owei- of right of sovereignty, in the absence of the grant of such 
power, expressl}' or by implication, in the Constitution? These 
questions may be answered as one. When territory is acquired 
by the United States and annexed, it must and can be done for 
one purpose only — that is, the formation ultimately of a free State 
to become one of the States of the Union. The acquisition of terri- 
tory for any other purpose has no warrant in the Constitution. 
Then the new territory comes into the constitutional control of 
the Government of the United States with the inchoate right of 
ultimate statehood. This right exists independent of treaty stip- 
ulations with the power ceding the territory. It arises out of the 
Federal Constitution, and a treaty stipulation violative of this 

4108 



9 

right would be nugatory as in contravention of the ConstitutioD, 
the supreme law of the land. 

The power given in the Constitution (section 3 of Article IV) to 
Congress to admit new States into the Union carries with it the 
right to acquire the teiTitory out of which these States are to be 
erected, and necessarily the right to determine when the new 
States are fitted for admission. No new terx-itory could be ob- 
tained except by constitutional authority. Why is it that Cno- 
gress could not acquire territory for another purpose than ulti- 
mate statehood? The section of the Constitution mentioned would 
not prohibit it if the United States had plenary sovereignty. It 
is because the i^eople, in whom all sovereignty rests, limited the 
sovereign power of the United States by the terms of the Consti- 
tution. Amendment 10 provides: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States resijectively, or to 
the people. 

The Constitution did not grant the power to establish colonies. 
Congress therefore has power to acquire territory only to make 
new States. This, however, is not an open question. The highest 
judicial tribunal in the United States has determined it. The 
minority of the Committee on Territories, having under consider- 
ation a bill to provide a government for Hawaii, reported to the 
House in January, 1899, their objections to the passage of the then 
pending measure, and based those objections on the oft-cited deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court on this issue. It was held in the case 
then cited and frequently discussed in this Congress, that — 

The United States nnder the present Constitution can not acquire terri- 
tory to be held as a colony to bo governed at its will and pleasure, but it may 
acquire territory which at the time has not a population that fits it to be- 
come a State, and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population 
which, in the judgment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted as a State of 
the Union. During the time that it remains a Territory Congress may legis- 
late over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citi- 
zens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial govei'nment, and 
the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of 
Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by 
the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States 
in respect to their rights of person or rights of property. 

The assumption that Congress has any specially granted power 
to legislate at will for the new possessions under the provision of 
the Constitution that Congress may dispose of and make all need- 

4108 



10 

ful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other prop- 
erty of the United States is denied. In two well-settled cases the 
United States Supreme Court has said: 

The clause in the Constitvition authorizing Congi-ess to make all needful 
rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property 
of the United States applies only to territory within the chartered limits of 
some one of the States wlien they were colonies of Great Britain and which 
was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of the 
States in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acqiiired by the 
present Federal Government bj- treaty or conquest from a foreign nation. 

Whether the power to legislate for and control the newly 
acquired territory belongs to Congress by this provision or as the 
result of the power to acquire it, that i^ower comes from the Consti- 
tution, and it^ exercise must be in accordance with the Constitution 
in respect to the rights of persons aiid property nnder it. Other 
decisions are numerous and the force of those decisions can not 
be broken by the assumption that the question was not before the 
court and that the decisions on the point are mere dicta. The 
issue was clear, the adjudication was positive, and no dissent 
on this point existed. The decision was one of Federal constitu- 
tional construction and was not, as has been contended, based on 
treaty stipulations. 

If no discussion had occurred and no decision had been made, 
as a question of first impression it would seem that if territory 
was acquired and added to the United States, whether created 
into a State or not. the citizens of such territorj', by the act of 
annexation, would become citizens of the United States, though 
not of any partictilar State, and would be entitled, in reference to 
their rights of person and property, to the rights of American cit- 
izens under the Constitution. The Constitution by its own proper 
force extended over and protected the new as well as the old citi- 
zen of the Republic in the Territories as well as in the States. It 
is not necessary that Congress shall pass an enabling act to extend 
the constitutional guaranties to the citizens of a newly acquired 
territory. This would be the creature giving vitality to the 
creator. 

The special governmental machinery for the enforcement of the 
citizen's rights within the territorial limits of the new acquisition 
must be provided by Congress, but it can not abridge nor deny to 
the citizen any of his constitutional guaranties, nor can it deprive 

41U.3 



11 

him of the equal rights of citizenship in any part of the Republic. 
If the territory be a part of the Republic its inliabitants are citi- 
zens of the Republic. 

If Puerto Rico and Hawaii are not a part of the United States, 
'■where do they belong? They are not independent. They can not 
establish a government of their own. The Governments formerly 
controlling them no longer control them. They have been an- 
nexed to this Republic by solemn treaty. They owe allegiance to 
the United States. They can not be in a state of political non- 
existence. Where are they if they be not tinder the flng and Con- 
stitution of this Republic? Are they not subject to our laws? 
Shall they be subject to punishment for the infraction of the Con- 
stitution and laws and be not entitled to appeal to that Constitu- 
tion and law for protection when their rights are infracted? Does 
Congress in the passage of general laws for the United States in- 
clude the Territories by name, or does it include them in the gen- 
eral term, "throughout the United States?" 

If the contention be correct that a Territory, organized or unor- 
ganized, is not a part of the United States, then it follows that all 
United States statutes not specially embracing the Territories by 
name are not applicable in those Territories, and the enforcement 
of such general laws heretofore has been illegal and unjust. The 
absurdity of the position is apparent. There can be no semiciti- 
zenship of this Republic. The moment the American flag is law- 
fully raised over new territory its inhabitants become American 
freemen, whose rights and liberties can not be abridged under the 
Constitution and over whom no colonial government can be estab- 
lished. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

Congress can not rnle any part of the territory of this Union as 
a conquered province. Those who would fix a government unre- 
publican in form on the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska and 
deny equal rights to Puerto Rico, and who have openly avowed 
that it is necessary that the Philippine Islands shall be governed 
by a government simple and strong, by the Army and Navy, at the 
will of President or Congress, "without consultation of the peo- 
ple or participation on their part in the government," have de- 
clared for the adoption of a rule of action that is over, above, and 
beyond the Constitution. It is a declaration against local gov- 

4103 



12 

ernment and against individual rights and liberties. It presents 
in another form the question of not only the true interpretation 
of the organic law, but the more dangerous question of the assump- 
tion by our Government of extra constitutional powers alleged to 
be inherent in the Government administration, regardless of the 
fundamental law. 

There yet are those who believe that the Constitution of the 
United States is the supreme law of the land, and that the Gov- 
ernment can exercise absolutely and without reservation all the 
power that the Constitution confers on it and every power that 
may be fairly implied to carry out the pov.'ers expressly granted. 
This has been the uniform interpretation of both State and Fed- 
eral courts. Not until now has anyone contended that the Gov- 
ernment was not one of powers prescribed and limited by the 
Constitution, and that all sovereign power not expressly granted 
by the Constitution nor fairly implied therefrom was expressly 
reserved by and to the people of the States. No intelligent man 
has stood upon the American hustings or in the Amei"ican Con- 
gress and advocated this doctrine of inherent power in the Admin- 
istration until now. 

How far power might be implied to give effect to power ex- 
pressly granted has been and forever will be in dispute. There 
will always be the strict constructionist and the liberal construc- 
tionist of constitutional powers, but the right of the Administra- 
tion to exercise power not expressly or impliedly granted is no- 
where admitted. From whence comes this new doctrine? Does 
it mean that the Constitution is no longer the source of power? 
Does it mean that sovereignty has departed from the people and 
is now vested in the Administration? This is the doctrine of 
kings and emperors. Is the Republic gone? Has the empire 
come? He who advocates the adoption of power inherent in 
administration and not authorized by the Constitution is neither 
a Democrat, a Republican, nor a patriot. It is the doctrine of 
tlie Tory and the monarchist. The proposition admits of no de- 
bate. It is at once subversive of the Constitution, the law, and 
popular rights. 

Apply the doctrine of militarism to the Territories, and it will 
spread with its crushing power over the great Commonwealths 
4108 



13 

that constitute the Union. Destroj' truth, justice, and liberty in 
the Territories, and truth, liberty, and justice will pass away in the 
States. Can it be that this is the culmination of the contention 
on the great constitutional questions that has gone on since the 
Government began? Is it the result of the growth of Federal 
power to the destruction of local rights? Is it the fulfillment of 
the prophecy of the enemies of the Republic? Is it possible that, 
notwithstanding implication has arisen upon implication in the 
construction of the Federal Constitution, and the most liberal 
views entertained and enforced as to the power of the Govern- 
ment, the enemies of local government may now entirely discard 
and abandon the Constitution and deny its power to limit their 
encroachment on popular rights? Are they at last driven to this 
new doctrine? 

Many have doubted that it was good for the common people 
that so much power should be contralized in the General Govern- 
ment. With some degree of alarm the growth of Federal juris- 
diction and the concentration of power have been beheld, but so 
long as this power was claimed to be the natural development of 
Federal constitxitional rights apprehension for the safety of the 
country was allayed, for it seemed reasonable that under no con- 
dition could the Administration become greater than the Consti- 
tution nor deny its binding force so long as it proclaimed obedience 
to it. But when we are told that the Government has power in- 
herent to rule the people as it i^leases, and therefore unconstitu- 
tional power, we must meet the issue. We must declare that the 
conflict is irreconcilable and irrepressible until the Government 
is redeemed to the people and he President, Congress, and all 
men bow to the Constitution r.s the supreme law of the land. 
When the contemplated innovation shall have been sustained and 
acquiesced in, the memories of the Republic may live, but the em- 
pire will advance to absolutism. 

It is said that the commercial interests of our country demand 
the annexation of tlie Philippines. I am not prepared to say that 
our commercial interests will be advanced by this acquisition. If 
it be so, the inevitable sacrifice of principle and sound public 
policy embraced in such a departure is too great to be influenced 
by such considerations. If commerce can not prosper witliout 

4108 



14 

the destruction of human libertj-. let commerce perish. The wild 
fanatics on this subject demand the annexation of the islands in 
the name of Christianit3% that the faith of the church may be 
taught to the people. Christianity teaches love, mercy, forgive- 
ness, and justice. Let not cruel hate, injustice, and crime blaze 
the way of its triumph. The crime of imperialism can not be 
hidden under the vestments of the Nazarene. 

The difficulty of establishing just and satisfactory government 
for Hawaii and Alaska and the complaints of injustice and wrong 
that come from these Territories, ought to teach us that the rule 
of distant territory and far-off islands in the seas can not be satis- 
factory to them or profitable to us. Expansion is not always 
inimical to our interest, but expansion may, and it does now, 
threaten to be so extensive as to weaken and exhaust us by sap- 
ping our resources in its maintenance in opposition to the consent 
of the people over whom it is proposed to maintain our unwelcome 
jurisdiction. 

As a matter of policy there are many reasons why we should not 
perfect our claim to the Philippine Islands. Their distance from 
us, 7,000 miles; the difference in the customs, manners, and mode 
of living of these people and our own; the insurrectionary spirit 
of the people; the immense cost of maintaining a large standing 
army and navy to enforce obedience from a refractory people to our 
laws; the deleterious effect of competition of the labor of that 
section with our own; the competition in manufactured products, 
the production of the unpaid and unfed labor of the islands, with 
theproductsof American workingmen; the injurious effect of com- 
petition with these people in agricultural products; the admission 
to equal rights wnth our laboring people in their homes in the 
States of this alien Asiatic race who could and would overrun our 
marts of labor— these are some of the reasons why, in sound pub- 
lic policy, the Philippines should not be annexed. 

We can not bring the cheap laborers of these islands to the 
standard of living and wages of the American workman, but we 
may reduce the standard of living and wages of our own people 
by enabling free and easy competition in the field of American 
labor by the Asiatic. The true policy would seek the elevation of 
the labor of our country. Our workingmen should have better 
4103 



15 

wages that they may have better opportunities. Better oppor- 
tunities will give the children better education, and the Republic 
will be strengthened by the enlightenment of its citizens. 

Every consideration of principle, sound public policy, and hu- 
man rights forbids the pursuit of imperialism by this Govern- 
ment. Can we be part free and part vassal? Will we longer 
hesitate between right and wrong? Shall the paths of safety be 
abandoned for perilous ways? We have been drifting away from 
the principles and practices of free and popular government. The 
impressions which our fathers had of justice and liberty seem not 
to be the heritage of their children. The sway of principle la 
quietly and gently yielding to the moro enticing love of gain. 
Exalted thoughts and noble purposes are succumbing to sordid 
and mercenary ideas and motives. We need the revival of the 
spirit of 1776. 

We must come once again under the shelter of the Constitution. 
We must realize that the powers of the Federal Government are 
now fully developed and that the verge of Federal jurisdiction 
with safety to the people and to Federal institutions has 
been reached. That if a further exercise of Federal power is 
necessary to the " public welfare" it must come from the people 
by Constitutional amendments, and not by legislative or judicial 
invasion or Executive usurpation of the reserved rights of the 
people. An empire under a constitution is better for the masses 
than an imperial democracy setting at defiance the most sacred 
rights of citizenship. 

But we will not have the empire; we wnll not have an imperial 
democracy. Congress may discard the Constitution; it may deny 
popular rights; it may assume unwarranted power; it may yield 
to the unhallowed demands of corporate greed; it may wound, 
but it can not destroy, the spirit of American liberty. The com- 
mon people of this Union are still capable of self-government. 
The avenging day, when their patience with the puppets of aris- 
tocracy shall cease, is not far distant. They will pledge again their 
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the Republic. If 
despotism shall place it there, they will tear from the ensign of 
the Union the words of "invasion and imperialism," so " treason- 
able to human liberty."' They will give that flag to the free breeze 

4108 



16 

of heaven once more as the emblem of the power, the justice, and 
the mercy of a God-fearing and liberty-loving people. 

The Republic will live under the Constitution, to enforce the 
equal rights of its citizens in the States and in the Territories and 
to cast the shield of its protection around them in foreign lands, 
when kingdoms and empires shall have fallen and the minions of 
imperial power sleep in unknown graves. Ere another sun shall 
light to the paths of duty the anxious people of Puerto Rico, let 
the message flash across the mighty deep that the American Con- 
gress welcomes her with equal rights to the bosom of the Repub- 
lic, and that crowns for her, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New 
Mexico, and Oklahoma, as sovereign States in our great Union, 
are being molded in obedience to the Constitution by the hands 
of freemen and patriots, [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] 
4103 

o 



f^:i, ... 



L'BRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 815 4 



